Computer purchasing advice

[V13dweller]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25...rmance-account This page can help Intel fanbois. Just saying. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272094-28-hate-guys We also have to take into account the price range, and the fact the Phenom II is three years old now. And AMD has newer processors to take on Intel's new ones. http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/M/369...leneck2013.png Look at these figures, the difference is marginal. This is what most people want to see, in Battlefield 3 http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/U/369...leneck2013.png

[Arclight]

... Fanboi? You don't think I might kinda know what I'm on about? Citing cherry-picked sources here isn't going to help you convince anyone.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=146

I'll stand by my previous statement of it depending on the game. A lot of times it won't really matter; once you hit a comfortable framerate it doesn't really matter if it's 60 or 120. But to say Phenom II can get even close to Sandy or Ivy Bridge, strictly CPU performance wise, is outright nonsense.

[V13dweller]

There is no point going on, we all know this will go nowhere. (Just like politics)

There is enough Biased information wherever you go.
Unless Toms Hardware is not a reputable source, then I don't know then.

More Information, of the I7 Vs the Phenom II.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/I/369...leneck2013.png

This picture shows the difference is marginal.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/L/369...leneck2013.png

This image shows my point once again.

Here are some more of the I7 against AMD's latest FX 8350.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/F/367...md-oc-1920.png

Here is intel's I7

http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/I/367...intel-1920.png

Here are the 3D benchmark tests.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/I/369...leneck2013.png

These differences only make a very small impact on your gaming experience.
And the cost differences of these is much larger then the gap in their gaming performance.
The cost gap is usually 200-250 Dollars in most Australian Retailers.


I am not trying to change your opinion, because that is not what we are here for, but these figures are to show that these Processors are very, very close when it comes to performance and if you want to pay that extra $200, so be it.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by V13dweller

These differences only make a very small impact on your gaming experience.

That's pretty much what I've been saying, with the noted exception that CPU-bound games will see a big difference. For pretty much everything but gaming, an i5 can be anything between 10-60% faster depending on the application. Single core performance is much higher than Phenom II.

This is what you were saying:

Originally Posted by V13dweller

Try the AMD Phenom II, they are much more powerfull than an i5, and they are just as effective as a. I7.

Which is blatantly false.


You're right, this isn't going anywhere. I feel that it is through no fault of mine though.

[V13dweller]

From all reviews I have read, Multi threaded applications (Like Sh5) run better on the AMD Phenom II x6, because they utilise all six cores.

This one from CPU-World.com shows that the Un-overclocked Phenom II runs Slightly better. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/372...5_i5-2400.html

My AMD Phenom II X6 runs at 4 Ghz like a breeze, no problems, the doesn't even need to spin up for more demanding games, like Sh5, Crysis 3.

The Phenom II (Tested by me) can run Crysis 3 at 90-150 FPS solid and they core's ave not even got over 50%.

[Arclight]

... You've really lost the plot now, mate. Games are notoriously hard (or excessively expensive) to multi-thread. Single-core performance is still preferable over core count, let alone back in 2010.

Since you seem to appreciate Tom's; http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...ard-core-gamer

Note the thread title. See how he points out he's not a "hard-core" gamer in a thread about multi-threading? That's because he knows games don't thread well and he wants to point out it is not a concern for that system. Topics like that where this is not specified always get the same response I gave you: single-core performance is more relevant to gaming.

[V13dweller]

I just use my Nvidia card to enable multi threading for any of my games, and Bam, Core load is balanced perfectly, took my SH5 core load from core 1 from about 40% and balanced it across all my cores perfectly.

And as the previous images I have linked you before, they only show a slight difference in gaming performance.
All my games seem to support Multicore, because all the load is balanced across all my cores, and this allows me to achieve very high frame rates on all my games.
I run Sh5 at Max Video setting and with 45 mods and my cores have the load balanced perfectly, I am able to use Time compression over 2000.
I have never had lag in any game I play.
The most my processor has ever got to is 45% on all cores, no core runs higher then others.

My GPU is the only thing that limits how effective my CPU is.
My Gpu can be working 50% and more while my CPU is just plodding along at at 20% average.

And I would not be here debating this if I had "Lost the Plot" My Friend.
This thread is about purchasing advice, not about maliciously defending your preferred Processor manufacturer.

[Arclight]

Let's get something straight: I'm not defending Intel. At no point did I say Intel is better than AMD, while you stated "Like everything Intel makes, they charge way too much for it.". So who exactly is "maliciously defending" their "preferred Processor manufacturer" here?

I have given you a straight up, all-round comparison between a i5 2500K and a AMD Phenom II X6 1090T. The AMD has a 2 core advantage there, and the i5 comes out with a clear lead. You flat out ignored it.

I gave you facts about game engines. You ignored them.

I don't much care what your experiences are with AMD; we covered that with acknowledging that a better CPU doesn't necessarily translate to better gaming, except where the game is CPU-bound. The fact is your statements contradict reality, and that's why I'm debating this: I can't stand misinformation, and I know from experience there's an awful lot of it floating around.

[V13dweller]

I'd like you to go over that again, I took all of this into account, I did not "Ignore it" I read over this multiple times.

I have given you all my comparisons.

I have told you how my Machine works, I have taken all this into account, would you like me to show you a picture that shows my performance in these games that I have previously discussed?

Want me to find a spare i5 and put this to the test against my current processor?

I have done these tests myself, I know what I am talking about.

And you showed the 1090T.

I use the 1100T and as I said, I run games like Crysis 3 on max video settings with a solid average of 130 FPS, do you use an i5? because I'd like to see you get an i5 to that.

My friend's i7-2760QM in his Gaming laptop runs a game Red Orchestra 2 at an average or 50-60 FPS.

And as the previous source showed, the i7 desktop processor's performance is only SLIGHTLY better then the AMD.

From what I gather, your not even looking at my sources, or your not taking any of these facts into the next posts you create.

I do not have time to go over this every day to give you these facts that I have already supplied but have not been taken into account.

I strongly recommend you re-read (If you have not done so already) these sources my friend.

I do believe that that your attitude towards me, and this subject is nonsensical, but mostly to me.

[Gunsilnger]

Look at my sig, then copycat it! LOL I love my PC! My setup falls around your price range, but I already had a monitor(I just use my 42" LCD TV). Although I will be upgrading to a dual Video card setup, the single 610 with 1 Gig works great, I can run Call of Duty MW3 and BF3 with full graphics and options .

Check Microcenter for prices. They've got some killer deals.

Good luck!

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by V13dweller

I have done these tests myself, I know what I am talking about.

got any hard evidence to back that up some graphs of your own regarding CPU load, clock speeds, temps, in game settings, external graphic settings, FPS benchmark charts the whole works.
if you're such a tester and you know what you talk aobut it shouldn't be so hard.

And you showed the 1090T.

I use the 1100T and as I said, I run games like Crysis 3 on max video settings with a solid average of 130 FPS, do you use an i5? because I'd like to see you get an i5 to that.

now that's curious because most PC's I've seen with the Phemon II x6 1100T average an 40-50FPS cores running at 40-60% clocked at 3.7ghz to 4.0ghz high settings (not maxed out)

even the FX8350 clocked at 4.6GHZ maxed out at 1080p resolution squeezes perhaps an average of 20 and without the games filters (AA/AF) 32fps in crysis 3, and let's throw in some Far Cry 3 for a bonus and crossfire GPU results.

Benchmarks
AMD 8350 - HD7970
Crysis 3 - Stock Clock

• 1080p - Max - 20.00
• 1080p - No Filters - 32.20
• 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 35.68
• 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 54.20

• 1440p - Max - 13.48
• 1440p - No filters - 21.96
• 1440p - Crossfire - Max - 22.88
• 1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 39.04

Crysis 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz

• 1080p - Max - 20.00 (identical result, but separate bench)
• 1080p - No Filters - 32.36
• 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 36.04
• 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.76

• 1440p - Max - 13.28
• 1440p - No Filters - 22.12
• 1440p - Crossfire - Max - 23.52
• 1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 39.52

Far Cry 3 - Stock Clock

• 1080p - Max - 34.28
• 1080p - No Filters - 47.92
• 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 45.92
• 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 47.20

• 1440p - Max - 24.32
• 1440p - No Filters - 41.92
• 1440p - Crossfire - Max - 40.80
• 1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 46.56

Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz

• 1080p - Max - 36.44
• 1080p - No Filters - 55.24
• 1080p - Crossfire - Max - 53.12
• 1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.40

• 1440p - Max - 25.52
• 1440p - No Filters - 44.20
• 1440p - Crossfire - Max - 42.08
• 1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 59.24

or take this lovely chart for example.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ng,3451-8.html

130FPS Average? maxed out? Cores not breaking a sweat? ehm...I don't think so unless you can bring forth what I asked above.

My friend's i7-2760QM in his Gaming laptop runs a game Red Orchestra 2 at an average or 50-60 FPS.

just stop right there.... now you're just losing the plot.

HunterICX

[Beardmoresam]

I'm building a setup right now:
AMD A10 5800k (which I intend to overclock) has brilliant built in graphics
ASUS F2A55-M LE
2x 8GB RAM at 1.6 GHz (may go higher on the speed)
Cooler master 440 case
SATA 500GB HDD (may add another 500GB HDD or a SSD)
HD TV for a screen

[V13dweller]

As my previous data shows, I was comparing the Phenom II to the processor of 2010's standard, the 37xx not the 39xx, not the latest top of the line equipment.
And your showing equipment of post 2010 standards, and this is voiding the validity of what some of my data shows, now just settle down and look at the data I show you, and see it as it is, not just how you want to see it.
And I know the odds's are stacked against me so I will just discontinue this debate while I am still ahead, please get the expected silliness and expected insults and/or rude remarks out of the way.
Since all of my data has been shot down without any of it taken into consideration.

Also, if you have difficulty viewing and seeing information from links.


Not too much difference.


Not much difference at all.

I will also have a screenshot taken at a later date of the FPS counter showing you the results you don't want to see.

Relating to my friends i7, It was a comparison from is LAPTOP processor to other i5's.
And the i7 does outperform the i5 under most circumstances even though it is a laptop core.

I'm sorry I have a different opinion to the rest of the community even if it is supported by facts.
If having a different view is not allowed here, I will associate myself somewhere else.

[Oberon]

Spike, here's my advice.

Don't ask for advice.

[DragonRider]

Its a good job Toms Hardware is around or else some people would not know what there opium is because they wont listen to anyone who is actually using the program or hardware. its all down to what Tom says the guy must be making a killing on kickbacks.